You either go to church every day and celebrate with others in a positive and constructive way.

Or you stay away altogether.

But you don't go to church every day to monotonously repeat multiple times per day that church attendance is in decline.

Just my 2 cents. You obviously have an agenda. Please put it on the table.

Thanks, Joris.

Very simple Joris.

I do have a bit of an agenda... it is about countering MFD hype and marketing exaggerations.Particularly this type...

Quote

A Hasselblad camera is not a reward for having achieved a successful career. A Hasselblad camera is the tool with which you build your successful career to begin with.There is never any time like the present to start building for the future. And if you think 35mm is good enough for this stage of your career, then you’d better hope that your clients are also willing to settle for “good enough”. The best clients, however, are almost never willing to settle for “good enough”. And why should they, when there are photographers out there who can provide the best? And providing the best is what Hasselblad and the new H5D are all about.

and the type the OP pointed out.

Also to a lesser extent counter the over enthusiastic praise from some enthusiasts.Now don't get me wrong on the enthusiasts... I enjoy enthusiasts and am grateful as a professional for the positive effect of enthusiasts on the price and development of gear. Bigger market to the advantage ofpros and others.

The problem is that I see too many young photographers fall for the marketing BSand end up spending their money in the wrong place.

Just sharing my knowledge and opinions with who I feel more of an allegiance with...and that is with my up and coming colleagues...

I do have a bit of an agenda... it is about countering MFD hype and marketing exaggerations.Particularly this type...

and the type the OP pointed out.

Also to a lesser extent counter the over enthusiastic praise from some enthusiasts.Now don't get me wrong on the enthusiasts... I enjoy enthusiasts and am grateful as a professional for the positive effect of enthusiasts on the price and development of gear. Bigger market to the advantage ofpros and others.

The problem is that I see too many young photographers fall for the marketing BSand end up spending their money in the wrong place.

Just sharing my knowledge and opinions with who I feel more of an allegiance with...and that is with my up and coming colleagues...

Simple as that.....

@ Fred,

Actually, on the very contrary it appears you are giving these young photographers complete lies and marketing BS that DSLR can achieve in same quality. That is not so (though some select shooting DSLR seem to be dreaming so). Thus, in fact you seem to be the one misleading those young photographers, and not at all MFDB industry... who arguably do not do as much marketing advertising as Nikon, Canon and the likes.

MFDB is a specialized tool all about optimum image quality (not a versatile do all tool such as DSLR). If someone want a tool for highest image quality then MFDB is simply a sound choice in digital still photography, unless scanning back. On the other hand when someone goes around constant arguing of DSLR is same level image quality, skin tones or whatever (based on whatever claimed experiences), frankly either you are complete blind, or you have something more hidden on your agenda, perhaps some sour grief that you hold on to. Those do not give a very sound impression on a reader... or credibility when reading between the lines, simply because you do not present the basis for your argument, due an apparent hidden agenda.

It begs to wonder if you had some sour happening with a MFDB product that was not properly settled or helped out. It would be interesting to read your real story of it. I did have one myself, with the Mamiya ZD which had insufficient design and implementation, at least around 2007. I think they never quite fixed it, regrettable since it has same sensor as the stellar Aptus 22. But that did not result in me making a U-turn to DSLR, because even with ZD I could see there was a big step up in image quality over DSLR at the time. At least I informed what was the problem with ZD but did not go around and spread BS that DSLR could achieve same. I do believe I helped some not to step into the problem I encountered and pointed out in a post here on LuLa at time of what was the problem. I continued MFDB and I am now on my second Leaf. If you had any problem then why not spit it out and post it. I would be very interested to read of it.

In my view, comparing to your stellar work of 6x8 film images, your words in these forums of MFDB seem to come across to steep downgrade your stellar film works, at least in my eyes. It begs to wonder who is this guy??? You have not even posted a MFDB image that is comparable quality to your film images, which of course begs to wonder if at all you used a MFDB to its fullest, and if that film work posted is really yours?

Professional vs enthusiast? The only difference is that one makes $ off photography and the other do not, yet has nothing to say of the capability or knowledge of photography.

Above just my take... which may be wrong, or may be right. I would be happy to see you post what is the real issue for your "agenda". I am certain others here would have interest to read it, and also try to help out if you did encounter a problem.

I don't disagree with either your view or Fred's. What I would point out are a few things.

The D800E has no OLP filter. This is a characteristic it shares with MF. There can be argument about if that is bad or good. Knowledgeable persons like Tim Parkin finds that the D800 with correct sharpening is preferable to D800E as the D800E introduces artifacts in the image. Michael Reichmann finds that the D800E is preferable.

Marc McCalmont who frequently posts on these forums has both Phase IQ180 and D800E. He uses the D800E with Leica lenses. My understanding is that he no longer uses his Phase One camera but uses either the IQ180 on his Alpa technical camera or the D800E. From his testing (and he was kind to share raw files) he found that the IQ180 had a resolution advantage. Marc is satisfied with DR on his IQ180 while the P45+ he had before was clearly lacking compared to his Pentax K5 (which is an APS-C camera). So Marc's approach is IQ180 for techical camera and the D800E for else.

Dave Segal, who often writes on Luminous Landscape, was enthusiastic about his Pentax 645D but switched to Nikon D800E when it arrived.

There are obvious and less obvious advantages with MFD systems. The larger format sensor collects more photons, thereby reducing shot noise. The lack of OLP filtering requires less aggressive sharpening, that is also a factor reduces shot noise. The area where some DSLRs have an advantage is a better handling of readout noise using massive parallell on chip DA conversion. That technology is mainly coming from Sony. Canon does not have it, nor the Nikon D700 or D4. The readout noise advantage shows an advantage in DR, but that only affects the darks.

MFDBs are frequently have advantage of 16-bit data path, but the data sent to the 16 bit datapath contains something like four bits of noise. So this may be true, but it is essentially marketing BS.

MFDBs may have better CGA (Color Grid Array than some DSLRs), but that has nothing to do with CCD vs. CMOS (as is often stated) but is a design choice of the sensor maker.

MFDBs are often used with proprietary raw developers, that may also give MFDBs a real or perceived advantage.

So my take is that are some real advantages of MFDBs, but there are also perceptions about MFDBs which are not well supported by physics.

Finally I enclose two figures from DxO-mark comparing DR and Tonal Range for the Nikon D800E and Phase One IQ180

The Nikon has a significant advantage in DR and achieves high DR at much higher ISO. In tonal range the size advantage of the IQ180 shows.

The difference between the two is that DR is much about readout noise where the Nikon shines while Tonal Range is more about photon statistics where the larger sensor of the IQ 180 collects more photons, resulting in smoother higlights and midtones.

Actually, on the very contrary it appears you are giving these young photographers complete lies and marketing BS that DSLR can achieve in same quality. That is not so (though some select shooting DSLR seem to be dreaming so). Thus, in fact you seem to be the one misleading those young photographers, and not at all MFDB industry... who arguably do not do as much marketing advertising as Nikon, Canon and the likes.

MFDB is a specialized tool all about optimum image quality (not a versatile do all tool such as DSLR). If someone want a tool for highest image quality then MFDB is simply a sound choice in digital still photography, unless scanning back. On the other hand when someone goes around constant arguing of DSLR is same level image quality, skin tones or whatever (based on whatever claimed experiences), frankly either you are complete blind, or you have something more hidden on your agenda, perhaps some sour grief that you hold on to. Those do not give a very sound impression on a reader... or credibility when reading between the lines, simply because you do not present the basis for your argument, due an apparent hidden agenda.

It begs to wonder if you had some sour happening with a MFDB product that was not properly settled or helped out. It would be interesting to read your real story of it. I did have one myself, with the Mamiya ZD which had insufficient design and implementation, at least around 2007. I think they never quite fixed it, regrettable since it has same sensor as the stellar Aptus 22. But that did not result in me making a U-turn to DSLR, because even with ZD I could see there was a big step up in image quality over DSLR at the time. At least I informed what was the problem with ZD but did not go around and spread BS that DSLR could achieve same. I do believe I helped some not to step into the problem I encountered and pointed out in a post here on LuLa at time of what was the problem. I continued MFDB and I am now on my second Leaf. If you had any problem then why not spit it out and post it. I would be very interested to read of it.

In my view, comparing to your stellar work of 6x8 film images, your words in these forums of MFDB seem to come across to steep downgrade your stellar film works, at least in my eyes. It begs to wonder who is this guy??? You have not even posted a MFDB image that is comparable quality to your film images, which of course begs to wonder if at all you used a MFDB to its fullest, and if that film work posted is really yours?

Professional vs enthusiast? The only difference is that one makes $ off photography and the other do not, yet has nothing to say of the capability or knowledge of photography.

Above just my take... which may be wrong, or may be right. I would be happy to see you post what is the real issue for your "agenda". I am certain others here would have interest to read it, and also try to help out if you did encounter a problem.

I do have a bit of an agenda... it is about countering MFD hype and marketing exaggerations.Particularly this type...

Just sharing my knowledge and opinions with who I feel more of an allegiance with...and that is with my up and coming colleagues...

Simple as that.....

Fred, I find it very hard to believe that this is your only motivation. I would be very surprised if there was not a more personal motif hidden underneath.

And which MFD hype are you talking about? This year we witnessed a D800 hype and to a lesser extent hypes in smaller cameras like the Olympus OM-D E-M5 hype, the Sony NEX-7 and Fuji X-Pro1. But a MFD hype? So I am not sure what you are reacting to...

Also, from your comments it is very clear that you never shot with a more recent model of the Hasselblad like the H4D or the H4X. Your knowledge is entirely based on older models, Internet platitudes and false information that continues to be repeated in these forums.

BTW, for what it is worth, I very much like your positive agenda, your obsession with the Fuji GX680, and how you use that tool to its fullest.

I don't disagree with either your view or Fred's. What I would point out are a few things.

The D800E has no OLP filter. This is a characteristic it shares with MF. There can be argument about if that is bad or good. Knowledgeable persons like Tim Parkin finds that the D800 with correct sharpening is preferable to D800E as the D800E introduces artifacts in the image. Michael Reichmann finds that the D800E is preferable.

Marc McCalmont who frequently posts on these forums has both Phase IQ180 and D800E. He uses the D800E with Leica lenses. My understanding is that he no longer uses his Phase One camera but uses either the IQ180 on his Alpa technical camera or the D800E. From his testing (and he was kind to share raw files) he found that the IQ180 had a resolution advantage. Marc is satisfied with DR on his IQ180 while the P45+ he had before was clearly lacking compared to his Pentax K5 (which is an APS-C camera). So Marc's approach is IQ180 for techical camera and the D800E for else.

Dave Segal, who often writes on Luminous Landscape, was enthusiastic about his Pentax 645D but switched to Nikon D800E when it arrived.

There are obvious and less obvious advantages with MFD systems. The larger format sensor collects more photons, thereby reducing shot noise. The lack of OLP filtering requires less aggressive sharpening, that is also a factor reduces shot noise. The area where some DSLRs have an advantage is a better handling of readout noise using massive parallell on chip DA conversion. That technology is mainly coming from Sony. Canon does not have it, nor the Nikon D700 or D4. The readout noise advantage shows an advantage in DR, but that only affects the darks.

MFDBs are frequently have advantage of 16-bit data path, but the data sent to the 16 bit datapath contains something like four bits of noise. So this may be true, but it is essentially marketing BS.

MFDBs may have better CGA (Color Grid Array than some DSLRs), but that has nothing to do with CCD vs. CMOS (as is often stated) but is a design choice of the sensor maker.

MFDBs are often used with proprietary raw developers, that may also give MFDBs a real or perceived advantage.

So my take is that are some real advantages of MFDBs, but there are also perceptions about MFDBs which are not well supported by physics.

Finally I enclose two figures from DxO-mark comparing DR and Tonal Range for the Nikon D800E and Phase One IQ180

The Nikon has a significant advantage in DR and achieves high DR at much higher ISO. In tonal range the size advantage of the IQ180 shows.

The difference between the two is that DR is much about readout noise where the Nikon shines while Tonal Range is more about photon statistics where the larger sensor of the IQ 180 collects more photons, resulting in smoother higlights and midtones.

Best regardsErik

Hi Erik,

That sounds as a very good summary.

The obvious is that MFDB is designed for optimum image quality at low ISO and using a larger sensor and technology catering towards this. Including a better calibration in factory of colors etc.

DSLR cameras on other hand aim at a more general use and with an image quality over a broad range of ISO. They are more mass produced and doubtful with the time to calibrate each unit that MFDB fabricators uses.

Hence different tools, for tad different though overlapping uses. If they made a DSLR with as few buttons as Leica S I might eventually pick one up myself, but for now... the Leica X2 seem a good complement to MFDB per my opinion. A working pro may need more...

For now I am happy with my Hy6, but I respect those who are so with DSLR. They are tools

Actually, on the very contrary it appears you are giving these young photographers complete lies and marketing BS that DSLR can achieve in same quality. That is not so (though some select shooting DSLR seem to be dreaming so). Thus, in fact you seem to be the one misleading those young photographers, and not at all MFDB industry... who arguably do not do as much marketing advertising as Nikon, Canon and the likes.

[...] On the other hand when someone goes around constant arguing of DSLR is same level image quality, skin tones or whatever (based on whatever claimed experiences), frankly either you are complete blind, or you have something more hidden on your agenda, perhaps some sour grief that you hold on to. Those do not give a very sound impression on a reader... or credibility when reading between the lines, simply because you do not present the basis for your argument, due an apparent hidden agenda.

Anders_HK, really? Anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is completely blind or has an agenda?

I generally stay away from these discussions (for obvious reasons), but attacking a poster personally, accusing him of "hidden agendas" , being blind and/or telling lies is honestly a bit much. Fred may have is agenda. I do not know and I do not care. The fact is he believes that MFD is over-hyped and sold as the only tool a real professional photographer can use to deliver optimal quality when in fact a D800 or 5D can produce results that are close enough or as good at a fraction of the cost. This might be true or not, but it is definitely an opinion to consider, especially for young professionals who have to make trade-offs in a tight market. It is also a view that seems under-represented on the forums, which makes it doubly welcome.

As for the skin tones, I have yet to see a double-blind test comparing skin-tones. So with respect to that Fred's opinion is as valid as anyones else's.

I have seen many a discussion board become completely useless because of personal attacks, so my plea is to keep personal attacks out of this.

And just to avoid unnecessary discussions, here comes the disclaimer: I know Fred, have had dinner with him, and bought a Fuji GX680 on his recommendation. I did buy version 3, rather than version 1, though

The fact is he believes that MFD is over-hyped and sold as the only tool a real professional photographer can use to deliver optimal quality when in fact a D800 or 5D can produce results that are close enough or as good at a fraction of the cost. This might be true or not, but it is definitely an opinion to consider, especially for young professionals who have to make trade-offs in a tight market. It is also a view that seems under-represented on the forums, which makes it doubly welcome.

I work for a large magazine publishing company (some 30 magazines + 50 B2B publications), and we have not used anything but FF DSLRs during the last 5 years or so, only exception being when short flash sync speeds are needed outdoors. Which is not often. All studio work (we have 4 large studios) is done with tethered FF DSLRs. 20+ MPix is more than enough for high quality glossy magazine full spreads, nobody is complaining. Cheap, fast, convenient. Why make life more complicated with MFD when nobody is asking for the (largely imagined) added quality ?

Anders_HK, really? Anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is completely blind or has an agenda?

I generally stay away from these discussions (for obvious reasons), but attacking a poster personally, accusing him of "hidden agendas" , being blind and/or telling lies is honestly a bit much. Fred may have is agenda. I do not know and I do not care. The fact is he believes that MFD is over-hyped and sold as the only tool a real professional photographer can use to deliver optimal quality when in fact a D800 or 5D can produce results that are close enough or as good at a fraction of the cost. This might be true or not, but it is definitely an opinion to consider, especially for young professionals who have to make trade-offs in a tight market. It is also a view that seems under-represented on the forums, which makes it doubly welcome.

As for the skin tones, I have yet to see a double-blind test comparing skin-tones. So with respect to that Fred's opinion is as valid as anyones else's.

I have seen many a discussion board become completely useless because of personal attacks, so my plea is to keep personal attacks out of this.

And just to avoid unnecessary discussions, here comes the disclaimer: I know Fred, have had dinner with him, and bought a Fuji GX680 on his recommendation. I did buy version 3, rather than version 1, though

Sorry, was I perhaps a tad too direct? And yes, people are happy with their VW while other prefer Porsche, both are good quality transportation just like cameras are different tools. That does not mean that anyone should wisely ignore that one is built for a more specialist application and better at it, and keep on saying that my beetle is just as quick as your 911, does it???

In frankness I did much of my earlier advancing work with a Nikon F100 and I very much enjoyed that as a tool. An excellent camera for me at the time and primarily using 28-70 AFS. Looking back I have a collection of good images, mostly slides, in 35mm format. Had I been smart and known I would have not gotten the Nikon but would have gone with Mamiya 7. Why? I would have had a collection of 6x7 slides from some lovely travels.

Now you may argue that todays top of line DSLR provide better image quality than Mamiya 7. Lets not go there. The point I make is MFDB provide a quality that set it apart from DSLR, and allows you to push yourself further and see better. It sure did for me. I read long time back that the minute you pick up and start working with a medium format camera there is an rather immediate improvement in quality of your works. I believe in part because slower and because you see better. I do not particular look back with fondness of my DSLR image collection, though I am very pleased with some. Even processing my ZD files from some 4-5 years back I was very impressed with them over what I could process my same old DSLR files --- because I learnt processing better and tools for processing are now better. There is better data and more data.

I work for a large magazine publishing company (some 30 magazines + 50 B2B publications), and we have not used anything but FF DSLRs during the last 5 years or so, only exception being when short flash sync speeds are needed outdoors. Which is not often. All studio work (we have 4 large studios) is done with tethered FF DSLRs. 20+ MPix is more than enough for high quality glossy magazine full spreads, nobody is complaining. Cheap, fast, convenient. Why make life more complicated with MFD when nobody is asking for the (largely imagined) added quality ?

Of course. Choice of tools. There is nothing wrong with DSLR, on the indeed very contrary for those who prefer it. Like you say, if that is the only requirement go for it. Yet top image quality can be obtained using MFDB. Does the photographer want it? Does the magazine look at the picture itself? Thus it is up to the photographer to judge what is best to profile him/herself among competition, is it not? However, it is chocking that when picking up most magazines nowadays the image quality is frank not very good. It is usually the more expensive product advertisement that is highest image quality, and many of those read out MFDB. Regrettable, I guess since come down to $$.

My work is personal. My own personal requirement is for very high image quality and because I want to be able make detailed prints and aim at very high image quality.

I work for a large magazine publishing company (some 30 magazines + 50 B2B publications), and we have not used anything but FF DSLRs during the last 5 years or so, only exception being when short flash sync speeds are needed outdoors. Which is not often. All studio work (we have 4 large studios) is done with tethered FF DSLRs. 20+ MPix is more than enough for high quality glossy magazine full spreads, nobody is complaining. Cheap, fast, convenient. Why make life more complicated with MFD when nobody is asking for the (largely imagined) added quality ?

I'm now primarily a studio portrait photographer. The difference in a large print, say 30x40, of a family or group taken with dlsr compared to mfd is noticeable. I took down my older studio samples of wall portraits taken with dslr because people were asking why the mfd prints look better.

Anders, you may notice I wasn't arguing anything about image quality, or the different way of working in MF. All I claimed was that Fred provides a different point of view that I find relevant. I am also not a fan of personal attacks.

As for metaphors, a "Rolls Royce" and "Ferrari" might be a better comparison

To all the contenders in this thread - wouldn´t it be better to make some nice images (with whatever camera ever needed) instead of spending the time with attacking each other because of agendas and high quality and the urge to use the best tools ?I think this is totally personal and irrellevant. A perfect image can be shot with an iPhone or an 8/10", a Polaroid or an IQ180. Whatever fits and whatever is at hand.

The only thing that counts is the image. A camera is ony a tool.

And yes - this sentence by Stephan Schulz is stupid. Any colleague I know uses plenty of cameras and this is just like saying painting an image can just be done with a number 3 horsehair brush and certain acrylics because they are better than other paints. If you think about this on a painters view you see how stupid this is.

Yes, Alex Koloskov did prefer the H4D40 over the Nikon, but he gave the flexibility to use the back with optical bench cameras was the main reason for that preference. Mr Koloskov's test was well done and worth reading.

This is the conclusion from the first part of his test:

"There is a difference in IQ and very low difference in shadow recovery between both cameras, which was a surprise for me. Knowing the difference in sensor technology I expected to see more advantage of Hasselblad over the Nikon. And if we consider the price difference, the Nikon become a true hero: $3200 (body) and $1000 (lens) against $16900 (body+DB) and $ 5900 (lens) is a huge… The only thing which stops me from getting Nikon instead of Hasselblad is a freedom to use Medium Format back in technical view cameras like my Cambo Ultima. Yes, there are adapters to mount 35mm DSLR to a view camera rails as well as DIY solution like this one I did myself, but none of them do not allow to use tilt/shift/skew angles possible with MFDB: the sensor is too deep in DSLR camera body."

And this is the conclusion of the second part:

"ConclusionI was pleased to see the performance of Nikon D800E. Despite the huge difference in a price, D800E was able to deliver the quality comparable to 5+ times more expensive Hasselblad. Great shadow and highlight recovery was actually a big surprise for me, considering 14 Bit small sensor vs 16 bit in Hassy (more bit depth means more colors and wider dynamic range).

Also, we need to keep in mind that it was not a true sensor-to-sensor performance test, as the glass was playing a big part of the resolution and details quality of the shots. Nikon had cheap, and most likely it would deliver even better sharpness and details if I’d use Carl Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar (or similar older Zeiss) lens for Nikon. Also, I was using F16 and F11, which is quite tough for the lens, especially for Nikon’s. Yes, it would give me a better resolution at F6 or F8, but I rarely use such wide open aperture in my studio work, and this is why I’ve used F16 in the test: to see the real-life performance, not the best possible.

Well done Nikon! Cameras like D800 will shake medium format market, and I hope it will drop their pricing even more.

And what about Hasselblad? It is still a choice of hi-end professionals who can spend 5x more time more money to get that last 10% of quality for their images. Ferrari is in business, as well as Subaru, and both are pretty fast and enjoyable cars to drive, isn’t it? My personal decision is to stay with Hasselblad and replace H1 P25+ with H3D39 or similar MF camera. Like I’ve mentioned before, I need digital back to be deatachable and mountable on any other rig such as technical camera. Plus, I hate to clean 35mm DSLR sensors, and every time I swipe dust off from my P25+ Phase One digital back i smile: it is so easy!:-)"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The above is cut and paste from Mr. Koloskovs articles.

I would add that I did some analysis of color reproduction on the color checker samples in Mr. Koloskov's test, using LR4. It may be that the Hasselblad colors were nicer but they had about twice the color error (calculated as DeltaE) compared to the Nikon D800E. To begin with, the colors were significantly oversaturated on both. Reducing the saturation to correct made the Nikon pretty good but the Hassy was still lagging.

Now, it may be possible that Phocus would yield more accurate colors, but my guess is that Hasselblad may be tuned to give more pleasant colors.

The way I see it you can build an excellent system with a combination of the best Nikon and Zeiss lenses using the Nikon D800E, and that will be a good investment for foreseeable future. You can buy an awful lot of fine glass for the cost of a low end digital back. So that is clearly an option. So you can get excellent performance for the cost of a used Toyota.

On the other hand you can also go for a high end back and high end lenses. So you get somewhat better performance for the price of a new Mercedes.

Diglloyd has done some comparisions between the Leica S2 and both Nikon D3X and D800. In my view the Leica S2 was slightly better at the center and the Nikon slightly better in the corners. The Leica was tested with the 120mm f/2.5 APO-Macro-Summarit-S and the Nikon with the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar.

It is a pay site but if anyone is considering paying say 29 990$ vs 4842$ (Recent prices for camera lens combo at BH Photovideo) the fee att Diglloyd may be a good investment.

I also agree with "bcooter's' and Stefan Steib's comments. But I'm just in the progress of processing the raw files from week of shooting from the Yellowstone and Grand Teton, so I'm not in picture taking mode. The shoot in the US reminds me that it is not only about have good equipment bust also about making best use of it. Sometimes I botched it ;-(

A perfect image can be shot with an iPhone or an 8/10", a Polaroid or an IQ180. Whatever fits and whatever is at hand.

The only thing that counts is the image. A camera is ony a tool.

Exactly.

The funny is that with each new DSLR there are always arguement that it produce same as MFDB. Image quality from iphone is not same as 8x10, though a picture from an iphone can be better! That is to the photographer.

@ Erik,

I know exact what he wrote. Is it worth it is a question, also to make ones own comparison. I can tell that upgrading Leaf back from 28 to 80 MP I experienced a significant step in image quality beyond just being more pixels. It has also led me to better pictures because I see the photographic image better by switching to Hy6 camera and enjoy shooting it much more than Mamiya or DSLR. Also because the image quality brings me a similar sensation to my picture that film did (finally). That is important and about finding what is right tool and NOT latest rage of gear. Someone else may find same in D800 or other DSLR or other camera, that is individual.

It is notably not only about correct colors. With the 80MP Leaf I do find the colors to look more correct, but above all to have a more pleasing rendering which is very important.

In the end it is the picture that is all that matter. Our choice to get there is individual.

Like I said many use VW. They may even get to a place faster than someone in a Porsche... it is about choice, but there is also a clear difference in tools. A Porsche is not a VW, nor is image quality of D800 same as MFDB or even the ZD!

I have indicated on this thread before that pleasant and correct color are two different things. Velvia, which both you and I used for a long time is a good example for this. I always "hated" Ektachrome, but I would not say it's colors were more real than Velvia, but the colors in Velvia were overemphasized. Great for landscape, less so for portraits and de facto hard to scan. Nevertheless I stayed with Velvia for the detail.

Sometimes, correct color is important, essentially in any case a company logo is involved, or correct reproduction is needed.

One interesting observation that you made is that it took a last generation (or next last?) high end MFDB to give you satisfaction that you never felt with the lesser backs. Many buyers would opt just for those lesser backs, perhaps second hand? So they can still spend like 20000$ (camera, lenses and back) on equipment which may not give them satisfaction if they are as demanding as you are?

I know exact what he wrote. Is it worth it is a question, also to make ones own comparison. I can tell that upgrading Leaf back from 28 to 80 MP I experienced a significant step in image quality beyond just being more pixels. It has also led me to better pictures because I see the photographic image better by switching to Hy6 camera and enjoy shooting it much more than Mamiya or DSLR. Also because the image quality brings me a similar sensation to my picture that film did (finally). That is important and about finding what is right tool and NOT latest rage of gear. Someone else may find same in D800 or other DSLR or other camera, that is individual.

It is notably not only about correct colors. With the 80MP Leaf I do find the colors to look more correct, but above all to have a more pleasing rendering which is very important.

In the end it is the picture that is all that matter. Our choice to get there is individual.

Like I said many use VW. They may even get to a place faster than someone in a Porsche... it is about choice, but there is also a clear difference in tools. A Porsche is not a VW, nor is image quality of D800 same as MFDB or even the ZD!

I'm now primarily a studio portrait photographer. The difference in a large print, say 30x40, of a family or group taken with dlsr compared to mfd is noticeable. I took down my older studio samples of wall portraits taken with dslr because people were asking why the mfd prints look better.

Which DSLR versus which MFD are we talking about? There are wide variances. I can only think of two plausible contenders in the DSLR area at base ISO, the D3x and the D800/E.

Actually, on the very contrary it appears you are giving these young photographers complete lies and marketing BS that DSLR can achieve in same quality.

Never said that. What I have said and am saying is that the images quality difference is very small while the price difference is huge.What I am also saying is that in the real world of most commercial photography that difference is not readily visible and I am not referring to web, I am referring to print.

My other important point is that the better functionality of a high end 35mm DSLR are more likely to make a significant difference to the final result when working under pressure and long hours. At the end of a 8 hour fashion shoot shooting wide open for that shallow depth of field look the accuracy of the focusing of a 35mm DSLR will mean you get close to 100% keepers. When the model is starting to fade you cannot afford to lose any shot due to focus hit rate. Shooting with wind you need a faster frame rate.

Now there was a time when you had to make a significant quality compromise to have agility and speed. Today you only have to make a very small compromise, one that will be virtually invisible on publication. Even large format publication.

As I have stated before you really have to print on state of the art printers like the IPF8100 that I use or better, print to 60x40 inches to see that difference.And even then you have to approach the image and observe it close up. And there are times when this is the case... such as a large landscape image where the viewer wants to step close and observe parts of the image... explore corner to corner. Doesn't need to be a photography nerd either